Ex Parte Pope et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201814427323 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/427,323 03/11/2015 Andrew Pope 54549 7590 11/30/2018 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. 64330US02; 67097-2243US1 CONFIRMATION NO. 7361 EXAMINER ELLIOTT, TOPAZ L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW POPE, DAVID J. YUDICHAK, JOHN P. LUCASHU, GREGORY E. REINHARDT, JOHN C. DITOMASSO, STEVEN L. CONNER, CARL BRIAN KLINETOB, and JASON LEROUX Appeal 2018-003165 Application 14/427,323 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-003165 Application 14/427,323 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15. See Ans. 2-3 (noting cancellation of claims 7, 14, and 21-27 after close of prosecution, and setting forth grounds of rejection applied to remaining claims 1, 8, and 15). Claims 2---6, 9-13, and 16-20 were canceled during prosecution. Final Act. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellants' claims are directed generally "to a static guide vane [that] is provided with internal hollow channels to reduce weight." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A static guide vane for a gas turbine engine comprising: an outer platform and an inner platform, said inner and outer platforms connected by an airfoil; said airfoil having channels extending into a main body of said airfoil and a cover closing off said channels with said cover providing a portion of said airfoil; there being a plurality of said channels extending in a generally radial direction from said inner platform toward said outer platform, and spaced from a leading edge of said airfoil towards a trailing edge of said airfoil, said channels extend for a greater width, with the width defined between the leading and trailing edges, as the channels approach the trailing edge, there are ribs intermediate said plurality of channels, and portions of a recess between said channels and said trailing and leading edges together form a planar surface for supporting said cover; and a feature ensures that said cover is an appropriate cover for the particular static guide vane. 2 Appeal2018-003165 Application 14/427,323 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hansen Helder us 5,439,354 US 7,189,064 B2 Aug. 8, 1995 Mar. 13, 2007 Anderson, David A., "Design for Manufacturability & Concurrent Engineering," 2004. Estrada, Gabriela, "An Approach to Avoid Quality Assembly Issues since Product Design Stage," International Conference on Engineering Design, August, 2007. REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 8, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Helder, Hansen, and Anderson. Ans. 2-3; Final Act. 7. Claims 1, 8, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Helder, Hansen, and Estrada. Ans. 3; Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS Appellants' main argument is that Hansen is not combinable with Helder because Hansen "does not relate to a guide vane having a cover, but rather appears to be a guide vane with two complete outer skins," and so "[t]he structural challenges on such a vane would be distinct from that of Helder." App. Br. 2-3. As the Examiner states, however, Hansen's "invention applies to new and existing hollow airfoil designs" and the "Examiner has relied upon the teaching of distribution of ribs [in Helder], rather than details on assembly of the skin, which Hansen does not provide." Ans. 3--4. 3 Appeal2018-003165 Application 14/427,323 Simply stating that there are "structural challenges" does not provide any reason why the rib distribution within a hollow vane such as in Hansen could not also apply to a hollow vane as in Helder. We agree with the Examiner that "Helder's ribs are provided for the purpose of stiffening the vane" and that "Hansen discloses an improvement for existing hollow guide vanes ... with internal ribs that provide stiffness." Ans. 4. Accordingly, we see no reason why Hansen's rib distribution within a hollow vane would not have been an obvious improvement to the rib distribution disclosed in Helder' s hollow vane regardless of the other differences between in construction. Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Anderson teaches the claimed feature for ensuring that a cover is an appropriate cover for the guide vane. App. Br. 3. Appellants first assert that this feature is related to there being a family of guide vanes and that the feature is in place to ensure that only proper guide vanes from the family may be installed. Id., see also Reply Br. 2. As the Examiner points out, however, the claims say nothing about a family of guide vanes (Ans. 6) and so the Examiner's specific basis for finding a disclosure of the claimed "feature" in Anderson need not be related to selection of an appropriate cover from a family. Lastly, Appellants argue that Anderson teaches numerous, preferable solutions "before getting to anything such as the disclosed feature." App. Br. 3. The test for obviousness is not whether a solution is optimal, but only whether it is known in the art. As the Examiner states, "the problem of correct assembly is an old problem and many solutions are known," one of which is the claimed solution. Ans. 5. Appellants provide no reason why 4 Appeal2018-003165 Application 14/427,323 one of ordinary skill in the art would not have made the proposed modification other than to state that other, preferable solutions were known. Even if we were to agree with Appellants on the arguments made as to Anderson, the Examiner is correct "that Appellant has made no arguments against Estrada" and on that basis, we could affirm the rejection over Estrada rather than Anderson. Ans. 5. In conclusion, Appellants have provided no persuasive argument for overturning the Examiner's rejections. Accordingly, we sustain all of the Examiner's rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 8, and 15. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation